Categories

Meta

Trump-onomics

The “neoliberal establishment” (NE) includes everyone who supports profits over people, and who cheers the endlessly-widening Gap between the rich and the rest. This includes politicians, university professors, media pundits, and Wall Street criminals of all stripes.

Clearly the “neoliberal establishment” hates Donald Trump — but why? Trump seems to favor everything they do. (The key word is “seems.”) He echoes the Big Lie about federal finances. (As does Sanders.) He dutifully harps on the (fake) “national debt crisis.” He (falsely) told Fox News that the USA is “Getting to be a large-scale version of Greece.” The latter is always a crowd pleaser.

Nonetheless the “neoliberal establishment” hates him. Why? On the surface, it seems that one problem is that Trump is an entertainer and not a politician. That is, Trump speaks plainly and candidly, whereas professional politicians like Hillary or Obama can talk for hours and say absolutely nothing at all. Plus, Trump claims that he’s too rich to be bought. This resonates with average Americans who know that the U.S. President is essentially powerless, and is merely a salesman for policies that are dictated from far above his pay grade.

I can understand the enthusiasm. I myself would vote for Trump over Hillary, even though I disagree with most of what Trump says.

But there is another reason why the “neoliberal establishment” hates Trump. They say his spending and tax proposals would “blow a hole in the federal budget.”

The following is from the “Fiscal Times,”which is one of countless blogs and propaganda mills funded by Pete Peterson, all of which are focused on demanding…

[1] More austerity

[2] More deregulation of Wall Street

[2] More inequality between the rich and the rest

[3] The elimination or privatization of all social programs that help average people (such as Social Security).

Taken together, Trump’s proposals for slashing tax revenues by as much as $12 trillion over the coming decade, leaving Social Security and other major entitlement programs unscathed and achieving his biggest savings by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse” are a recipe for record long-term deficits and debt.

Whoops. Right there you know the rest of the article will be bullshit. But this passage shows why Trump really angers these creeps. “Trump-onomics” means that Trump talks about tax cuts, but he says little about spending cuts on social programs that help average people. The latter is what the “neoliberal establishment” really wants to hear. They don’t care about “tax cuts,” since they don’t pay taxes to begin with. Big corporations and wealthy people that receive federal subsidies pay less than zero taxes.

No the “neoliberal establishment” wants to hear “spending cuts,” which means less spending for average people, and more spending for wars, for weapons makers, for evil departments like the FBI, and for Wall Street bailouts. This is what they’re not getting from Trump. Thus, “Trump-onomics” means failure to cut social programs. That’s a big reason why the establishment hates Trump.

Of course, the establishment is not getting it from the other Republican candidates either. Given that the rich have ground the masses into the dirt, this is not a good time for any candidate to talk about privatizing Social Security. They can actually do it when they become President, but they can’t talk about it on the campaign trail.

What Wall Street and the rich want is no change, except for the privatization of Medicare and Social Security. For that they will install Hillary. Obama gave them the TPP, and Hillary will finish the job.

Trump cannot be trusted to do this. Trump could go insane and develop a moral conscience. (Gasp!) He actually said, “Every Republican wants to do a big number on Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid. And we can’t do that. And it’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut.”

To Netbacker and elizathharris001 My blog is intended to generate debate in my classes. Is the US in fiscal trouble or (as Krugman says) we have a big enough printing press? I blocked Netbacker since it is a debate/discussion blog, not an opinion of what is correct which Netbacker implied.

Is the U.S. government in fiscal trouble? No it is not, since (as everyone knows) the U.S. government can create an infinite amount of dollars.

Therefore where is the “debate”?

As Greenspan often said on national TV, the U.S. government can create dollars to pay any debt. Hence the U.S. government is not bankrupt, and can never go bankrupt. There is no “national debt crisis” in terms of the public debt, or the U.S. government’s debt. Nor can any federal program such as Medicare or Social Security ever be “insolvent” or “unsustainable.”

These are not opinions, perspectives, guesses or hypotheses. They are simple facts. Any claim to the contrary is a lie.

Some people, in order to continue claiming that there is a “fiscal crisis,” resort to the inflation bogeyman. This ploy is lame and false, as I have often explained in this blog. Moreover the topic of inflation has nothing to do with the fiscal status of the U.S. government. It has to do with monetary policy and the overall economy.

Regarding the blocking of “Netbacker,” you seem to imply that your blog is a forum for “debate / discussion.” I presume this means that people can offer their opinions in this “debate/discussion.” Yet you blocked “Netbacker” for offering an opinion in this “debate/discussion.”

Strange.

I myself never block or delete anyone’s comments, no matter how vile or insulting. There are certain people who regularly attack me. I don’t read those people’s comments, or reply to them, but I never delete them either. Nor will anyone ever be banned. On the contrary, those who attack me and hate me are delightful, since they give me fodder for satire.

Nor do I delete a blog post if someone points out my errors. Instead, I thank them and correct the errors. You, however, have evidently removed the blog post that “Netbacker” referred to. As of this moment it is no longer accessible on the Internet.

Again, many thanks (sincerely) for visiting and commenting. I would enjoy hearing from you again.

‘From 2005-2014, George Mason University (GMU) and affiliated centers have taken just under $80 million from Koch foundations.

The George Mason University Foundation received $46,527,725 from Koch foundations since 2005. The bulk of this funding has gone to GMU’s Economics department and GMU’s Law and Economics Center. This $46.5 million investment represents half of the $90 million total that Koch foundations have sent to college departments at over 360 universities since 2005.’-http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-and-george-mason-university